Mafia 54: Return of the Cannibal

[House Connington]

[quote name='House Harte' post='1424697' date='Jul 2 2008, 12.12']While Myatt is an acceptable lynch, I'm much more fond of Whitehill's case on Overton. Primarily for spotting Overton contradicting himself. I need to go back and review things, before placing a vote. I'll do that shortly as well.[/quote]
To add to this, I of course don't like that Overton is most suspicious of me. I've never thought it sound tactics for an FM to be the bottom poster, but the lowest poster is always an easy target for a lynch. I'll apologize to the innos now for being the lowest poster. :( Sorry.

[quote name='House Overton' post='1424271' date='Jul 2 2008, 12.38']Let's look at Harte now, an interesting character:
<snip>

Ok I've now become very suspicious of Reyne too :)[/quote]
Also, since I find Reyne to be the least suspicious so far, Overton's smiley comment on finding Reyne suspicious doesn't sit well with me.

And finally, lynching Overton would spare me having to wade through exceedingly long posts of replies by Overton. I honestly didn't finish reading Overton's reply post to Whitehill, because it seemed redundant and unnecessarily long.


This post moved Brax up on my suspect list:
[quote name='House Brax' post='1424637' date='Jul 2 2008, 11.43'][url="http://asoiaf.westeros.org/index.php?showtopic=28949&st=106"]Post 107 by Fell[/url]


eta: and Overton did Whitehill and Harte[/quote]
Why you'd even spare commenting on others' cases is puzzling. It gives me the impression that you're simply trying to [i]appear[/i] useful, without repeating the work of others.


On the other hand, I find your case on Fell not half-bad for Day 1l:
[quote name='House Brax' post='1424276' date='Jul 2 2008, 12.41']Since I really don’t like bananas, I have an apple on Fell.

He has just 5 posts: 1) Yo, I’m here; 2) Calling out Overton for his use of the royal “we”; 3) sad smiley to no speed lynching; 4) a case on Myatt, that is marginal for day one; 5) A request for bananas on Whitehill and Harte.

Looks like he is trying to be helpful and asking for bananas always makes you look good :rolleyes:[/quote]
As far as my suspect lists though, I have Fell off to the side as not having a good read on him, and therefore not in my tiers as yet. I need to reread him later.


And just to comment on this:
[quote name='House Brax' post='1424309' date='Jul 2 2008, 13.23']So far I have Templeton, Fell, Harte and Tyrell as suspicious, but not sure how I rate each compared to the other though.[/quote]
Since you're pinging my radar, Brax, I saw this list as throwing your FM partner in your list of suspicions, to distance yourself.
I don't find Temp suspicious, I don't have a good read on Fell, and I'm innocent. But Tyrell's been bothering me, although I'd have tor reread to figure out why. (I intelligently opened reply screens on some of Tyr's posts, and when going back to them, had no idea why. :P)


Ok, this post is long enough, I'll be back again in a few with another round of comments.

[House Velaryon]

[quote name='House Brax' post='1424748' date='Jul 2 2008, 11.32']I don't understand. My opinion of the case is it was weak. My reasoning is based on the way I read Myatt.[/quote]I'll try to explain again. You have every right to disagree the case because of your reading Myatt. You have every right not to vote him. But you have no right to call the case weak unless you would oppose it logically. You haven't found any weak points incide this case. You dismissed it because of your gut, still you allowed yoursef to suspect a few players just because of them following the case. It's unjust, and it makes you suspicious, because innocent player is unlikely to act this way. Innocent player won't accuse other people just because their opinion of a case is different from his. (Look at Egen). Is it understandable now?

[House Payne]

[quote name='House Whitehill' post='1424574' date='Jul 2 2008, 10.11']Just stop using the term 'banana' or 'apple' or whatever. It's stupid. What is it supposed to mean anyway?

Summary? What are you summarizing at this point in the game? Barely anything has been said.

Evaluation? How is that different from a case?

[u]Mini-case?[/u] Whats that, a case you don't really believe in? [u]Or just a few small points that don't actually add up to being a case[/u]? Why would that even merit a special term? Just say the person is suspicious for those points, and leave it at that.

[i]Reason why I'm objecting to the term is because it seems like a cop-out. You make a point against somebody, people object, and you respond "it wasn't a case, it was just a banana!" As if that means something. [/i][/quote]
Summary is a summary. It equals evaluation.

The underlined part is correct.

The italicized part is wrong. A banana is just as serious as a case, just smaller.

[House Ashford]

[quote name='House Overton' post='1424618' date='Jul 2 2008, 10.33']Yep. oh wait, you want me actually to give you the explanation. :) I was thinking about Grandison's little logic riddle with the statements, not about his or my votes or about the game generally. That clear it up?[/quote]

You know, now that Fell has it in my head that smiley faces are an attempt to placate people, I can't help but read your post and think you are kissing up. Get me to leave you alone now, and then you try to kill me at night.

Anyway, no, it doesn't really clear things up. I understand what you're claiming here, but when I read the post, it still looks to me as if you're saying "I've thought about it, and have decided that Grandison deserves my vote."

[quote name='Overton']Yeh I think you're right. I did just want to say something game related but as it happens, I'm an innocent who just wanted to say something game related. You're right that it isn't a particularly clever post, but you're wrong to say it's suspicious.[/quote]

It's definitely suspicious. If you're innocent and want to say something game related, then say something that will help us find the bad guys. Don't just make an empty, pointless statement that looks like contribution, but really doesn't help us at all.

[quote name='Overton']Like I said then, I didn't feel a vote from me to try and dispel accusations of middle-of-the-roading would achieve anything. And yeh, in a way I was trying to defend Myatt, because i thought other people were more likely to be baddies, so I would rather they were lynched than Myatt.[/quote]

I disagree with your claim that a vote wouldn't accomplish anything. A case adds pressure, but it isn't going to accomplish much if people ignore it. However, if people cast votes against the subject of the case, as a result of the case, then the pressure will be increased and the player in question will be more likely to respond.

That said, I don't dispute your right to vote for whoever you think is most suspicious.

[quote name='Overton']I genuinely didn't (and don't) really understand your enter key post. So the serious part was asking you what you'd meant, while acknowledging that it is not actually suspicious in and of itself.[/quote]

Tyrell posted a long, unbroken paragraph. When I said the enter key was his friend, I meant that he should break up his paragraphs by using the enter key.

[quote name='Overton']Look, if I had my vote on you, this would be a good point. But I don't[/quote]

You may not have voted for me, but you certainly did rank me 2nd on your suspect list. Even if you weren't pushing your case against me, you still had me ranked near the top based on that empty case.

[quote name='Overton']Do take a look at the other players - some of them are mafia and one's a cannibal, and we need your help to root them out.[/quote]

And once again, I feel like you're kissing up to me. I don't like it.

[quote name='Overton']Whitehill, did my response to your points make sense? And is your vote still on me? :([/quote]

Why so worried about my vote?

[House Wythers]

[quote name='House Templeton' post='1424773' date='Jul 2 2008, 12.51']I'll try to explain again. You have every right to disagree the case because of your reading Myatt. You have every right not to vote him. But you have no right to call the case weak unless you would oppose it logically. You haven't found any weak points incide this case. You dismissed it because of your gut, still you allowed yoursef to suspect a few players just because of them following the case. It's unjust, and it makes you suspicious, because innocent player is unlikely to act this way. Innocent player won't accuse other people just because their opinion of a case is different from his. (Look at Egen). Is it understandable now?[/quote]

Just to clarify: I did not suspect anyone for following the case. I found people who were posting and not contributing suspicious. In Fell's case, he had one post that was contributing, the case on Myatt.

[House Payne]

[quote name='House Templeton' post='1424773' date='Jul 2 2008, 11.51']I'll try to explain again. You have every right to disagree the case because of your reading Myatt. You have every right not to vote him. [u]But you have no right to call the case weak unless you would oppose it logically.[/u] You haven't found any weak points incide this case. You dismissed it because of your gut, still you allowed yoursef to suspect a few players just because of them following the case. It's unjust, and it makes you suspicious, because innocent player is unlikely to act this way. Innocent player won't accuse other people just because their opinion of a case is different from his. (Look at Egen). Is it understandable now?[/quote]
I don't believe that was Brax' reason for suspecting Fell.
[quote name='House Brax' post='1424276' date='Jul 2 2008, 06.41']Since I really don’t like bananas, I have an apple on Fell.

He has just 5 posts: 1) Yo, I’m here; 2) Calling out Overton for his use of the royal “we”; 3) sad smiley to no speed lynching; 4) a case on Myatt, that is marginal for day one; 5) A request for bananas on Whitehill and Harte.

Looks like he is trying to be helpful and asking for bananas always makes you look good :rolleyes:[/quote]
And, the underlined part is clearly wrong. Opposing a case logically means defending the player the case was made on. This, generally, shouldn't be done. So, giving your fair (or unfair, anyway) opinion of the case isn't suspicious.

[House Velaryon]

[quote name='House Brax' post='1424778' date='Jul 2 2008, 11.54']Just to clarify: I did not suspect anyone for following the case.[/quote]
Still, you used "following weak case" as an arguement. You told so, don't even try to object.
[quote]In Fell's case, he had one post that was contributing, the case on Myatt.[/quote]Quality beats quantity any day.

[House Wythers]

[quote name='House Harte' post='1424771' date='Jul 2 2008, 12.51']This post moved Brax up on my suspect list:

Why you'd even spare commenting on others' cases is puzzling. It gives me the impression that you're simply trying to [i]appear[/i] useful, without repeating the work of others.[/quote]

I did comment on the case here [url="http://asoiaf.westeros.org/index.php?showtopic=28949&st=119"]http://asoiaf.westeros.org/index.php?showt...8949&st=119[/url]


I also commented on Overton’s case on you. I have not “tried” to appear useful, I have been doing a lot here. If it helps me (or anyone else) get a handle on the badies, then it is not a wasted effort.

[Magic Mirror]

Haven't finished reading the thread yet, so I'm just going to quote suspicious posts as I find them.

[quote name='House Overton' post='1424203' date='Jul 2 2008, 10.24']Interesting. Its not a completely meritworthy banana, but I do have Myatt as among the more suspicious people so far. I think your analysis of Myatt's character and posting style is correct - it's as if he wants to look for things to say so he's not eliminated for being a low poster, while at the same time he clearly is not really wanting to push the discussion on, so hence the smileys. Which adds up to something resembling a case.[/quote]

Whoa there now [b]Overton[/b]. I didn't like that case at all...in fact, I thought it took what could easily be someone's playing style and turned it into a bad case. Honestly, it looks like the kind of thing that someone bent on finding a suspect would make. For some reason I don't find Fell's case suspicious, but I don't like your agreement with it. With your next fewposts you prove yourself a player who can read posts, so why the quick agreement with Fell?

I do not like this. Going to keep reading.

[House Wythers]

[quote name='House Templeton' post='1424790' date='Jul 2 2008, 13.04']Still, you used "following weak case" as an arguement. You told so, don't even try to object.
Quality beats quantity any day.[/quote]

Why are you so hell bent on defending Fell? He had one post of questionable quality. I guess I am just not seeing where you are coming from, again. I am not even voting Fell or anyone else based on this case. I am voting someone even more suspicious than he is.

[House Payne]

I completely agree with Whitehill in finding Overton pretty suspicious.

My main problems with Overton are his unconfrontialness, combined with his cases, which seem too forced. He quotes every post of his suspect (instead of suspicious posts only), and then tries to twist it into a post of a dastardly mastermind.

I won't vote him yet though. I'd like more players to consider voting Templeton. Apart from the playstyle thing, a lot of his actions have been suspicious.

[House Velaryon]

[quote name='House Reyne' post='1424788' date='Jul 2 2008, 12.02']I don't believe that was Brax' reason for suspecting Fell.[/quote]
Yeah. There were no reasons at all.
[quote]And, the underlined part is clearly wrong. Opposing a case logically means defending the player the case was made on.[/quote]Disagreed. Opposing a case logically means finding inner contradictions within the case, or contrtaditions between the case and the facts known. It doesn't mean defending anybody.

[House Ashford]

[quote name='House Overton' post='1424271' date='Jul 2 2008, 06.38']After considering everyone I find suspicious, I think [b]Harte[/b] definitely smells the worst.[/quote]

Looking over your Harte case. Can't agree with any of the points you made against him. Which is strange, because I do think there was a valid point to make against Harte.

This statement is definitely suspicious -

[quote name='Harte']Huh. :unsure: Grandison has two votes, by last count, so I'm not ready to put a vote down, but I'd like to.[/quote]

Somebody having 2 votes is [i]not[/i] a good reason to withhold your vote, if you find the person to be suspicious. Harte is being way too careful with his vote here.

And I'll note that Harte still hasn't voted. We're down to 5 hours. There's no reason for anybody to be holding back at this point - pick a suspect, state a reason, and cast a vote. Commit to something.

[House Payne]

[quote name='House Templeton' post='1424790' date='Jul 2 2008, 12.04']Quality beats quantity any day.[/quote]
[s]Are you in love with Fell's case? :P[/s]

Sorry. Do you think it was really that good a case?

[House Westerling]

[quote name='House Whitehill' post='1424574' date='Jul 2 2008, 10.11']Mini-case? Whats that, a case you don't really believe in? Or just a few small points that don't actually add up to being a case? Why would that even merit a special term? Just say the person is suspicious for those points, and leave it at that.[/quote]

Don't be a term nazi Whitehill! When I say mini-case I mean an accusation that is based on one or two suspicious comments rather than a review of each and every post the player has made (which is quoted in full, of course, to add some gravity to the exposition).

Anyway, here it is. It may be short, but I think it's good.

[quote name='House Egen' post='1423811' date='Jul 1 2008, 18.53']- healer:

You just heal Egen. Every night. Egen is neither BP, nor mafia nor a cannibal. He is the one that you want to protect. Point.[/quote]

[quote name='House Egen' post='1424157' date='Jul 2 2008, 03.22']I already said that I am not the BP. I will be sort of BP though because the healer is going to protect me.[/quote]

This is what I have on Egen. Egen asked twice to be healed. I personally don't appreciate people telling the healer what to do. I think the healer should target whomever he thinks is the likeliest player to be nightkilled by the FM. Which is not always the smartest player. Which is not necessarily Egen either, of course. Though I do think Egen is reasonably smart.

So why does Egen ask twice to be healed? Well maybe it's because he just wants to be healed. He's afraid of a night kill. This doesn't seem likely to me. No healer would take his, rather overbearing, "request" at face value. While there are ways to attract a heal, (being very active, appearing reasonable, putting heat on players...), flat-out claiming you're innocent and ordering the healer to heal you doesn't seem like one of them. It seems counter-productive, actually (no one likes being told what to do in such manner).

Another possibility is that Egen is a FM, trying to ward off suspicion by desperately asking for a heal. This may be a possibility. I think it's rather blatant, though, and since we're acting on the premise of Egen having a certain degree of smarts I shall ignore it for the moment.

The third possibility is that he's the SK. But why would the SK ask to be healed? He's already BP! The answer comes from mafia history. Most SK games feature a BP SK. And most SK games end up with the SK outed by a disgruntled FM who reveals and points a finger at him after a deathless night. Now, the usual defense is claiming you are BP or that you were healed. I think this might be a build-up to this defense in the event such a situation occurs.

The possibility that Egen is the actually a roled innocent has ocurred to me, but I dismiss it on the grounds that it's much too blatant a call for attention. Making us think that he's a roled innocent without actually saying so seems like a much more plausible alternative.

Catching the SK is tricky, because his behavior is much closer to that of a RI than that of the FM. I believe this could be a good clue and I'm placing a vote on [b]Egen[/b].

[House Ashford]

By the way, people really need to respond to post 198, where I said -

[quote name='Whitehill'][quote name='Grandison']
I said "she" purposefully because I think some unknown identities deserve to be female. They can't all be male.[/quote]

That might make sense if you hadn't used both 'she' and 'he'.

[quote name='Grandison']Tyrell did contribute a lot in that one post though, and that's a lot to contribute during the early game. I usually need longer to study each person and discover their inner workings. [u]She[/u] hasn't really done anything suspicious, which is a fairly good reason to lynch [u]him[/u]. I will hold off on that just yet, Tyrell may in fact be very helpful to the innocents with [u]his[/u] newfound math skills.[/quote]

I wasn't going to make a big deal out of the slip, but now you're saying it was intentional and that you've assigned the female pronoun to Tyrell....yet you contradict that claim by using the male pronoun in the very same post. :unsure:[/quote]

How do you feel about a possible Grandison - Tyrell connection? Do you believe Grandison's explanation? Do you think it contradicts his actual post, where he refers to Tyrell as both a male and a female, rather than just a female?

[House Connington]

Well, I only had one post left to comment on:
[quote name='House Tyrell' post='1424303' date='Jul 2 2008, 13.18']Reyne no like to think! Reyne SMASH!

I think the three people I wouldn't mind lynching right now are Myatt, Jordayne and Brax. If I had to name a fourth it would probably be Grandison, but we can leave it at three for a day one.

I'll add my vote on [b]Myatt[/b] for now.

I'll be back in a few hours to try to flesh out my suspicions more.[/quote]
Ok. First: Myatt and Grandison strike me as easy targets for Day 1 lynches, so naming them both as suspects just seems too easy. They aren't top suspects for me, they're tier two. Tier two being my 'I'll lynch them if I have to" list.

Second: I don't have a great read on Jordi, but I like so far the way she thinks (yes, I'm using she, it's just a guess), as evidenced here:
[quote name='House Jordayne' post='1424334' date='Jul 2 2008, 13.50']<snip>
At risk of peeking others suspicion for going with the popular target, I'll add my vote to [b]Myatt[/b]. The impression I got from him while reading the thread is that he's trying appease far to much.

I'm also suspicious of Overton for his earlier defensive behavior, but I can't be certain that it wasn't just his schtick. Besides, I don't think there's a proven connection between overdefending oneself early in the game and said person being guilty.[/quote]
Although I admittedly don't see much reason to vote Myatt.

So other than Grandison, Mayatt, and Jordi, you list Brax. Well, I DO find her (yes, another gender guess) suspicious, but I'm wondering if naming each other suspicious isn't a good partnered-FM tactic. :idea:



My list so far:

Overton, Tyrell, Brax
Grandison, Myatt, Egen
Costayne
Reyne, Templeton, Whitehill


I don't have a read on Fell and Jordi.

And Tarth had only posted once, while Strong hasn't said anything.


I refreshed the page and see that Reyne agree with the case on Overton. That makes me more confident of my suspicions there.


[b]Overton[/b]


I'll be here until the day ends, but I need to actually do some work today, so I won't be doing much of rereading until later tonight. I will certainly be around and available to end the day with a lynch.

[House Payne]

[quote name='House Templeton' post='1424805' date='Jul 2 2008, 12.11']Disagreed. Opposing a case logically means finding inner contradictions within the case, or contrtaditions between the case and the facts known. It doesn't mean defending anybody.[/quote]
A case can be bad without having inner contradictions. This was the case concerning this case.

Regardless of this, I think that if you aren't going to suspect someone based on logical fallacies in their cases, any further comment beyond 'I like it' or 'I dislike it', or adding something to a case, is in fact doing the suspect's job, which equals helping him.

[House Velaryon]

[quote name='House Brax' post='1424798' date='Jul 2 2008, 12.08']Why are you so hell bent on defending Fell?[/quote]I am not defending Fell. I do defend the contribution he has done. In fact, within three-faction game he might very well be guilty (most likely, as SK). But, even if he is guilty, his case is still strong and you still failed to object anything to this, short of weak assumptious that Myatt might be noobish.

[House Wythers]

[quote name='House Templeton' post='1424790' date='Jul 2 2008, 13.04'][u]Still, you used "following weak case" as an arguement[/u]. You told so, don't even try to object.
Quality beats quantity any day.[/quote]

You have deliberate misrepresentation of what I said.

[quote name='House Brax' post='1424285' date='Jul 2 2008, 07.56']I was just getting to that, actually. :P

An apple for Templeton:

Like Harte he has only 3 posts, but even less content: 1) Hello, lets lynch team maths. 2) Being helpful is suspicious—Why look for people you can trust; 3) Don’t look for trustworthy people---likes the case on Myatt

[u]I guess if he feels that being helpful is suspicious that might explain why he isn’t being very helpful---trying to avoid any suspicion, which I find very suspicious. [b]Templeton[/b], do you think you can actually be helpful?[/u]


(he added a 4th post asking me to vote, no knowing I was in the process of doing just that)[/quote]

please show me here Templeton, where I say you liking the case on Myatt is suspicious? I described your 3 posts, but do not mention Myatt at all when I say why I found you suspicious. I never say this in fact. You very much misrepresented the facts here.